can also be read as
"Girls date older boys" -> obviously because high status is more important to women than anything else.

you miss the part where (anecdotally) girls mature faster than boys, and so perhaps would rather spend their time with someone more mature than the boys their age who haven't matured so much.

Then there are the girls *ahem* women who prefer a younger man because of certain physical attributes that a more mature *ahem* old man might be lacking, such as stamina or free time because of the job (the old man has one, the young man don't) (also, a young man, ain't got nothin' in the world these days)

You also miss where some girls like girls and some boys like boys and some of each would rather not ever and this one would be happy just to love you but that one won't be happy until he's seen you cry-hi-hi-eye.

Among low-income children, the age they lose their virginity is lower than among other SES's. However, among the majority girls do start younger. This might have to do with the two thirds of girls who say they either didn't want to lose their virginity when they did or had mixed feelings, and the 89% of sexually active girls who say they've been pressured into having sex. That is, boys often date younger girls, and apparently push them into having sex.

It helps if you look these things up.

I thought it was the whole "Girls mature faster so they favor older guys" sort of thing?

That's one explanation, although my point doesn't actually cover why, it's merely a descriptive statistic. I didn't offer an explanation for it.

I added to what I said, but either way I brought up reasons because of this, which goes into reasons:

Estranged wrote:

Quote:

boys often date younger girls,

can also be read as
"Girls date older boys" -> obviously because high status is more important to women than anything else.

More to the point: What's your feelings about (or can you offer proof, cuz if you could that'd be swell, since my search skills suck) What's your feeling about objectification in terms of mistreatment of women. I mean, do you think it's a cause of mistreatment, a symptom of mistreatment, or something that is correlative to a third issue (such as general dehumanization) OR (this is what I'm leaning towards) it's a case by case issue due to different people having unique sets of circumstances.

I mean I look at wiki on sexual objectification it starts here:

Quote:

Sexual objectification refers to the practice of regarding or treating another person merely as an instrument (object) towards one's sexual pleasure, and a sex object is a person who is regarded simply as an object of sexual gratification or who is sexually attractive. Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience.[1][2] Objectification is most commonly examined at a societal level, but can also arise at an individual level.

but then this really nails it for me:

Quote:

Recently, sexual-objectification has been reported as a national epidemic. A society filled with people experiencing sexual objectification and self-objectification is considered to have low political efficacy. The minimal self-worth of citizens leads them to doubt themselves in having the ability to understand and influence political affairs. As people lose their political efficacy, they stop having motivation to participate in society, and the result could be a society void of any enthusiasm, intellect, or advancement, or only input from one ruling power. Low political efficacy, or self-worth, also gives rise to sexual violence and its acceptance by society. Dehumanization through objectification has historically been a first step in justifying violence against a specific people. Today, 1 in 6 women are rape survivors, however 27% of women whose sexual assault cases matched the legal definition of rape actually considered themselves rape victims. Statistics like these acceptance of sexual violence by both men and women due to objectification and low self-worth.

and this:

Quote:

Research indicates that objectification theory is valuable to understanding how repeated visual images in the media are socialized and translated into mental health problems, including psychological consequences on the individual and societal level.[53] These include increased self consciousness, increased body anxiety, heightened mental health threats (depression, anorexia nervosa, bulimia, and sexual dysfunction), and increased body shame. Therefore, the theory has been used to explore an array of dependent variables including disordered eating, mental health, depression, motor performance, body image, idealized body type, stereotype formation, sexual perception and sexual typing.[50][53] Effects of objectification theory are identified on both the individual and societal levels.

Like I said, I think mistreatment within the porn industry is more about lack of proper governance and working conditions; porn's not a "real job" so treatment of its workers isn't a "real issue" (or so I presume goes the attitudes of those in power). It's like how people thought casinos coming to the poconos was going to bring rampant crime sprees (it didn't, only more tourists to a tourist industry based area, ohh such a BAD thing). I think many still believe the myths that porn stars having dream jobs and fantasy lifestyles.

I mean, isn't objectification (in the general sense) probably a good deal responsible for, or at the very least exacerbates, our rampant consumerism. I think this in turn helped lead to the circumstances that created 2008.

Also doesn't it lead to us making things sacrosanct, like those who say we shouldn't criticize the President or thinking that Catholic priest are beyond committing sinful acts? Like I said, it's right there in ever workplace: human resources.

* edit
Actually, let's throw in ANYTIME people are turned into numbers (hello healthcare, insurance, and No Child Left Behind)

Yeah, I think worrying about porn objectifying kinda moves a few rungs down on the list of critically important social issues, or rather, I think it demonstrates that it's really indicative of a much, much larger and more dangerous social issue: treating people as less than human beings._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

More to the point: What's your feelings about (or can you offer proof, cuz if you could that'd be swell, since my search skills suck) What's your feeling about objectification in terms of mistreatment of women. I mean, do you think it's a cause of mistreatment, a symptom of mistreatment, or something that is correlative to a third issue (such as general dehumanization) OR (this is what I'm leaning towards) it's a case by case issue due to different people having unique sets of circumstances.

I don't know how difficult it would be to study this... I'm not aware of an objective measure of objectification. So knowing the cause-effect relationship between objectification and abuse is difficult. Obviously, if one views women as sex objects and is indifferent to their thoughts and feelings then that would obviously make someone more disposed toward manipulating a woman to get what they want from her.

Quote:

Quote:

Recently, sexual-objectification has been reported as a national epidemic. A society filled with people experiencing sexual objectification and self-objectification is considered to have low political efficacy. The minimal self-worth of citizens leads them to doubt themselves in having the ability to understand and influence political affairs. As people lose their political efficacy, they stop having motivation to participate in society, and the result could be a society void of any enthusiasm, intellect, or advancement, or only input from one ruling power. Low political efficacy, or self-worth, also gives rise to sexual violence and its acceptance by society. Dehumanization through objectification has historically been a first step in justifying violence against a specific people. Today, 1 in 6 women are rape survivors, however 27% of women whose sexual assault cases matched the legal definition of rape actually considered themselves rape victims. Statistics like these acceptance of sexual violence by both men and women due to objectification and low self-worth.

Hmm. This section needs one of those wiki tags that asks people to add sources. It reads fairly biased (a society devoid of intellect would have people who doubted their ability to understand political affairs? did the author watch US politics? our stupid people think they have the best grasp on political affairs), and I notice none of the claims have citations. This would fail in a psych or soc class.

Quote:

Also doesn't it lead to us making things sacrosanct, like those who say we shouldn't criticize the President or thinking that Catholic priest are beyond committing sinful acts? Like I said, it's right there in ever workplace: human resources.

Both of those ideas go back to before the founding of this country. Still, it's not really objectification. First, we tend to attribute positive traits to people in well respected professions (doctors, nurses, priests), but objectification is the denial of positive traits (thoughts and feelings). You might say that we think of the President as the President and not the man, but first that probably isn't true anyway (see everyone who ever forwarded a racist Obama joke or a Bushism), and second I doubt that anyone would treat the President as an object if they were to ever meet him. Criticizing the President generally means to criticize his policies - the fruits of his intellectual and political efforts. That kind of throws objectification out, unless you make the more tortuous argument that he's a figurehead.

Having vague notions about people we don't know, or making assumptions about them as a group, isn't the same as objectification, and to me that's a smokescreen. You might not care to chat with the cashier at the supermarket, but you wouldn't degrade them to get them to do what you wanted. If they were nervous because they were new - wearing one of those, "be nice, I'm in training" badges - you'd probably modulate your behavior to show sympathy, maybe even say something like, "we've all been there, take your time." That's an acknowledgment of their emotional state, and an empathetic reaction... hence, not objectification. The idea that we treat people like objects unless we get to know them personally is, I think, either disingenuous or paranoid. People with antisocial personality disorder (sociopaths) treat everyone like objects - because they lack empathy, and thus everyone is a tool to an end - but the rest of us recognize the emotions of those around us and respond to them._________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

On the wiki page for sexual objectification there is a link to research article I just didn't post it.

I'll address other stuff tomorrow, but I'm using this definition btw:

Quote:

Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience.

This doesn't limit objectification as only denial of positive traits. I think you're too smart Doge and giving people too much credit. It manifest in early childhood even, namely with teachers. Many, many is the young kid who is amazed and stunned when they see their teachers outside of their class room rolls.

Also here's an even better one: idol worship. think of sports figures whom people practically worship like gods (hello Joe Paterno). I'm pretty sure those assholes in Penn State that were starting riots could be considered as objectifying him._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

You might not care to chat with the cashier at the supermarket, but you wouldn't degrade them to get them to do what you wanted.

I don't see how that is different from paying an adult sex worker for a consensual service.

I'd quote what a prostitute says about herself:

"I suggest cleansing insulting language like “selling their bodies for money” out of your vocabulary. This phrase is sexist nonsense; it pretends that a woman has nothing to offer the world other than sex, so if she sells sex she is selling “herself”, as though she was nothing but sex. It’s also an insult to customers; I can assure you that a prostitute who does nothing but lie there as an inert “body” will soon have no customers. Men do not want to rent a set of holes; they want a service like any other service. Do we refer to massage as “selling hands for money” or physical labor as “selling a back for money”? Of course not. Finally, the phrase is totally irrational; when a person “sells” something its ownership changes hands. The only way to “sell one’s body for money” would be by using some sort of soul transference like in a horror movie, or perhaps a brain transplant as in science fiction. If my spirit and mind still inhabit my body after the transaction I certainly didn’t “sell” it; I merely performed a service for pay, like anyone else might do with any other service."

Yet feminists constantly try to represent a voluntary, consensual act as degradation and slavery just because it involves sex. Turns out nobody can be more sexist than a feminist. We read below:

“Sex workers” is about the most neutral term you can use, because it recognizes that our work is indeed work. Even enslaved agricultural workers and miners are still called “workers”; only prostitutes are denied that dignity. (...) Nobody wants to ban agriculture, mining and garment manufacture despite the fact that those industries are polluted by slavery, but let there be one enslaved prostitute and suddenly it’s our fault and we need to be banned. There is no moral difference between enslaving someone to work in a field, a mine, a sweatshop, a brothel or a house, yet the rescue industry in Southeast Asia is trying desperately to push women from being free prostitutes into working in sweatshops because prostitution offends their morals while wage slavery does not."

This hopefully can enlighten you what a sex worker thinks about her 'objectification' herself.

The legal definition of rape is getting broader and broader. The way to critically read this text is that women who don't conform to feminist ideology and don't consider themselves rape victims are labeled anyway in order to raise the numbers that support the preconceived results. http://maggiemcneill.wordpress.com/2011/07/25/imaginary-crises/

Speaking of rape, I posted studies a few pages earlier that show how public acceptance of pornography leads to decrease in rape crimes. How would feminists explain that - they usually expect the opposite to be true?
Man will always lust after women, with or without pornography. Porn is a vent for the disbalance of sexual energy and different sexual priorities that men and women have. I think you'd have more success in trying to convert everyone to be a vegan.

BTW that's an interesting tangent. In gay porn you'd basically see the same things you'd see in straight porn. So gay man also like to dehumanize themselves? [sarcasm]Or they're like these sexual practices because that's their way to be misogynistic, despite the fact that only men are involved?[/sarcasm]

BTW that's an interesting tangent. In gay porn you'd basically see the same things you'd see in straight porn. So gay man also like to dehumanize themselves? [sarcasm]Or they're like these sexual practices because that's their way to be misogynistic, despite the fact that only men are involved?[/sarcasm]

I swear I thought I was in the feminism trainwreck. errr I mean thread.

You might not care to chat with the cashier at the supermarket, but you wouldn't degrade them to get them to do what you wanted.

I don't see how that is different from paying an adult sex worker for a consensual service.

Speaking of rape, I posted studies a few pages earlier that show how public acceptance of pornography leads to decrease in rape crimes. How would feminists explain that - they usually expect the opposite to be true?
Man will always lust after women, with or without pornography. Porn is a vent for the disbalance of sexual energy and different sexual priorities that men and women have. I think you'd have more success in trying to convert everyone to be a vegan.

ok here' some advice: Stop saying "feminist", it's a gross generalization. Not all feminists hold the same views and some hold very disparate views from each other yet all consider them selves feminists. This is probably the #1 reason people are pissed at you here.

Also one or two (or even 157) anecdotes does not scientific evidence make.

That said, I do agree with you that a worker consenting to a a surrendering of inalienable rights (to be treated as a human) is their choice and right.

HOWEVER that is not the issue. Once the cameras stop (as well as well before they even roll) women are being manipulated, deceived, and in extreme cases outright forced to suffer extreme degrees of humiliation, mistreatment, and sexual objectification. This is why I've been bringing up the need for good working conditions, fair labor practices, etc._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience.

This doesn't limit objectification as only denial of positive traits. I think you're too smart Doge and giving people too much credit. It manifest in early childhood even, namely with teachers. Many, many is the young kid who is amazed and stunned when they see their teachers outside of their class room rolls.

Also here's an even better one: idol worship. think of sports figures whom people practically worship like gods (hello Joe Paterno). I'm pretty sure those assholes in Penn State that were starting riots could be considered as objectifying him.

Re: the wiki, that was my point regarding the President. No one treats him as a commodity, or denies his personality or sentience, because most often when people disagree with him it's because of those things - they don't like him (Bush was the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with) or his policies (which are inherently linked to being sentient). You're going to have to show me a situation in which a person is treated as a commodity and stripped of their humanity.

Children don't really work well in this instance, because they're developing, and thus expected to make mental errors. Besides, not expecting to see a teacher outside the classroom isn't the same as denying them their sentience or personality, or treating them as education machines. Kids also often hug their teachers, or describe them as hateful ("why didn't you turn in your homework?" "I tried, but the teacher doesn't like me!" I love that lie), or bring them gifts, and some even cry when the school year is over. None of that suggests they've stripped the teacher of their humanity.

So, what about idol worship? Well, if objectification is denying the personality and sentience of a person, and treating them as a commodity, then their thoughts and opinions should be of no consequence, right? Certainly, slave holders didn't typically concern themselves with how the slaves felt about picking cotton. Yet idols have increased influence based on their level of worship. That's why companies pay them to be spokespeople, because their opinions carry more weight than normal. So, again, that's the opposite of objectification.

Estranged wrote:

I don't see how that is different from paying an adult sex worker for a consensual service.

Have you seen me make any argument against porn or prostitution? Who are you arguing with?

Quote:

Yet feminists constantly try to represent a voluntary, consensual act as degradation and slavery just because it involves sex. Turns out nobody can be more sexist than a feminist.

Again, you're lumping a lot of people who have very different ideas together and assuming they have the same thoughts. This is actually a very weak type of argument because all I have to do is say, "I'm a feminist and I don't hold that view at all," and now your argument is simply invalid. A stronger argument would be noting some feminists feel this way... but then your point is simply irrelevant unless some feminist here feels that way. Is anyone who is talking in this thread expressing any of the ideas you keep attributing to feminists?_________________"Worse comes to worst, my people come first, but my tribe lives on every country on earth. I’ll do anything to protect them from hurt, the human race is what I serve." - Baba Brinkman

Objectification more broadly is an attitude that regards a person as a commodity or as an object for use, with little or no regard for a person's personality or sentience.

This doesn't limit objectification as only denial of positive traits. I think you're too smart Doge and giving people too much credit. It manifest in early childhood even, namely with teachers. Many, many is the young kid who is amazed and stunned when they see their teachers outside of their class room rolls.

Also here's an even better one: idol worship. think of sports figures whom people practically worship like gods (hello Joe Paterno). I'm pretty sure those assholes in Penn State that were starting riots could be considered as objectifying him.

Re: the wiki, that was my point regarding the President.No one treats him as a commodity, or denies his personality or sentience, because most often when people disagree with him it's because of those things - they don't like him (Bush was the kind of guy you could sit down and have a beer with) or his policies (which are inherently linked to being sentient). You're going to have to show me a situation in which a person is treated as a commodity and stripped of their humanity.

I disagree. There is no shortage of people who honestly think to criticize the President is wrong, and the reason they feel this is wrong is because 'it's the President and instead we should always show him respect'. I've had personal interactions with these sorts as well as seen various comments on news articles here there and all the hell over the place. I think it's not because of misplaced loyalty so much as they view him as being above our moral judgement, they misunderstand what criticism actually is, or some other such faulty reasoning. And you can find them on all sides of the political field. I think anyone who votes for a party candidate solely based upon party affiliation (and you can't argue there aren't people who vote this way) is engaging in objectification; if they aren't looking into the what kind of person the candidate actually is when they make their decisions to vote then those voters are, in my opinion, engaging in a form of objectification. Also I feel that the persona's we see displayed publicly is always just a shadow of the actual person themselves and the inability for people to realize there's a difference between the two is part of the problem.

Quote:

Children don't really work well in this instance, because they're developing, and thus expected to make mental errors. Besides, not expecting to see a teacher outside the classroom isn't the same as denying them their sentience or personality, or treating them as education machines. Kids also often hug their teachers, or describe them as hateful ("why didn't you turn in your homework?" "I tried, but the teacher doesn't like me!" I love that lie), or bring them gifts, and some even cry when the school year is over. None of that suggests they've stripped the teacher of their humanity.

I don't think it's simply a childhood mental error. I think it's something we continue to do throughout our lives to varying degrees; some kids figure out "hey teachers are people too" and some never do. Anytime we look at people as good guys (police , teachers, doctors, fireman) and bad guys (criminals, drug users, prostitutes) we are engaging in objectification. Also I'd posit your assumption that teachers never hate kids (you're implying it) is also based upon this. I know there are at least a few racists teachers around here (which is extremely racists area btw, you don't live someplace for almost 25 years and not pick up on these things) that talk about the "nigglets" in their classes. I know that's an extreme example, but to say there's not biased and mistreatment enacted upon students is just silly. Heck, where I live is a trailer park (mostly double wides) and I've seen reactions change right in front of my eyes when they find out

Quote:

So, what about idol worship? Well, if objectification is denying the personality and sentience of a person, and treating them as a commodity, then their thoughts and opinions should be of no consequence, right? Certainly, slave holders didn't typically concern themselves with how the slaves felt about picking cotton. Yet idols have increased influence based on their level of worship. That's why companies pay them to be spokespeople, because their opinions carry more weight than normal. So, again, that's the opposite of objectification.

I don't think that's the case. An idol is a thing, a persona, it is not a person. I think there two sides to the objectification coin, a positive and a negative. We've been looking at the negative but I posit the positive is just as bad. I think having a notion that someone is above you or better than yourself can be just a damaging. I think that it's a large part of why people in positions of power and authority can get away with corrupt acts w/o people calling them on it. I know you've heard cases where respected community figures (be they football coach, politician, priest, police officer, etc.) get's convicted of child abuse and then it comes to light that people had made prior accusations yet were dismissed. "Fireman Bob was flashing little girls? Nonsense, he's a good guy. Why just the other day he saved my neighbors daughter from a burning building. Week before he did CPR and brought back that Johnson kid that fell off the pier. Someone like that couldn't be a bad guy."

Also you're right about their opinions carrying more weight, but it's also why if negative personal details (i.e. facts about them as a person, not their performing persona) come to light they can loose that status.

LASTLY, maybe not where you live, but around here cashiers are generally treated as less than people. I've been one. I joke with cashiers all the time whenever I see people ahead of me in line denigrating them (something that happens far too often). Also OMG the Chinese place by me. Words simply fail to describe the level of shittiness I've seen the workers there having to endure.

Also, have you ever worked in the hospitality field or customer service? I think there's this notion that if we pay for service we are thereby entitled to treat the workers with less humanity than we would otherwise._________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

I always wonder what South Park was spoofing (Butter's Very Own Episode BTW)_________________...if a single leaf holds the eye, it will be as if the remaining leaves were not there.http://about.me/omardrake

Four more pages have passed. I'm still not reading all those words. Another summary?

* porn is fun
* people like to argue
* there are people who treats other people wrong, this is bad
* you are a sick bastard
* feminist are weird
* objectivation is wrong
* there are other points of view, apparently other people think for themselves, this need to be checked
* apparently there this thing called sex that people have sometimes, no prof of it exist outside of porn
* i haven't read a single post._________________Made of pure crystalline awesomium